there is a finance company on my criedt report.. in fact I know I have talked about it on here before.. As of 04/15 it was listed under other accounts on eq gold.. date reportted 02/04.. well I have been disputing this with the CRAs and I have even sent a dispute letter direclty to this place.. which I am still unsure exactly what this place is. Ok even though I sent this dispute.. today I got a credit alert.. This has been updated.. it is now listed under installment accounts with a date reported 04/04.. The updated status is charged off.. I know they recieved my dispute. I just got the grren card back today and it says date delievered 04/14 .. I am reading this wrong? It says nothing about being disputed.. Also it says my DOLA was 07/1999 The TU report I have in front of me that I actually bought from them.. says the date closed was 12/1998.. So if they are updating this and not listing it as disputed is this a viloation? Also if they are giving a DOLA of 07/1999 on EQ would this be inacurate reporting?
"even though I sent this dispute.. today I got a credit alert.. This has been updated.. it is now listed under installment accounts with a date reported 04/04.. The updated status is charged off.. I know they recieved my dispute. I just got the grren card back today and it says date delievered 04/14" -If they received your dispute AFTER they reported or "updated" the tradeline, then there is no violation. If they report the account AFTER they receive your dispute, and do not indicate the account as disputed, this can be a violation. "Also it says my DOLA was 07/1999 The TU report I have in front of me that I actually bought from them.. says the date closed was 12/1998.. So if they are updating this and not listing it as disputed is this a viloation?" -Not based on the timeline you gave above. "Also if they are giving a DOLA of 07/1999 on EQ would this be inacurate reporting?" -When was the "date of last activity" ? -Come to think about it, WHAT is "date of last activity" and how is it relevent to the FCRA/FDCPA etc ? -The reporting period is ONLY based on the date of original delinquency. In this case, mid 1998 right ? -The FCRA requires the the furhisher to report the orignal date of delinquency, so a dispute sent to the reporting agency regarding this might be helpful.
well I know it the report could have been updated prior to my dispute.. It just seems odd that I have been pulling my credit report nearly every day for the past couple of weeks and this item has been the same every time. Untill today.. do my disputes with the CRA have anything to do with this? I started disputing this last month with the CRAs.. Perhaps I dont understand what the dola really is.. In my thinking there couldnt have been activity to the account if it was closed on 12/1998.. I dont know alot about this though.. am I thinking the sky is green here hiding? maybe I am grasping at straws here as well.. this is the largest debt still left on my cr.. well derog debt anyhow
Actually, you are doing exactly what the reporting agencies want you to do, be confused by "non issues" such as "date of last activity." There are really only a few issues of concern to the consumer when it comes to credit reports. 1- HOW did they get the info to verify or not verify a SPECIFIC dispute (reasonable investigation- FCRA 623 (b) 607 (b) ) 2- PERMISSIBLE access to the credit report. (FCRA 604 / 616) In reality, all claims, not taking into account FDCPA, can be summed up by 1 and 2. In YOUR case, it appears they are not reporting the correct original date of delinquency (arguebly this should be reported on a seperate line of the enry, but the "closed" date should really be the original delinquency date). It makes sense that a reporting agency has to report accurate info., or they can be sued right? Well, it can be argued that it is not WHAT they are reporting, but HOW they GOT what they are reporting. That's why I have said that a reporting agency does not have to report accurate info. YES, this seems outrageous, BUT THINK ABOUT IT What they have to do is "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy".
ah ok... but these inaccuracies even though not actionable.. are a vaild point of dispute though correct?
Re: Re: possible violation Hey Trekie, Initially a CRA may rely on info. supplied by a DF. Whether it's actually accurate or not is not the issue. So your argument is [purely from a legal standpoint] not that they reported inaccurate info. The point is did they follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, by pursuing a real investigation. 2 key words: 1) Reasonable 2) Investigation Go back & examine FCRA 623, especially (b). You'll see what we mean. .
Re: Re: possible violation ok I understand the resonable investigation. The viloation I was refering to was just the updating of the info. how can I find out if this was indeed filed before the dispute? I have honestly never heard of this company before. I dont think this is an OC.. but I am not 100% certain..
Re: Re: Re: possible violation In this case Trekie, the only way to find out whether it was updated before or after is through discovery. That's why we like to see people wait until AFTER your green card comes back before they dispute. It's quiet on weekends anyway. Give the thread a little time to develop. .
Re: Re: Re: possible violation ok so your saying I should have waited till the green card came back before I disputed with the CRA? I disputed with the CRA the 26th of last month I believe. I think it was about the time I first started reading posts on this board.. I probably should have sent my dispute with the creditor before.. In my equifax report there is no mention of dispute.. and it did say it was updated this month.
